The Massachusetts Family Institute sent an e-mail with an article about Gov. Romney and gay marriage, “Who will protect marriage in 2008?”, by Kathryn Jean Lopez, who writes for the National Review Online. I couldn’t find this on that site but here’s what MFI links to.
Excerpts:
An embrace of the marriage-protection issue on the right could put Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in a good position for the 2008 presidential primaries. As Republican governor of that liberal northeastern state, he’s tried pushing back against gay marriage, in the one state where it has — thanks to the courts — become legal.
Frankly, I thought the right had already warmly embraced the “marriage-protection issue.”
And on how to reframe GOP opposition to gay marriage:
Gay marriage isn’t an issue most like to have to talk about. Any sense that people are being deprived rights rightfully makes many squeamish. But marriage is fundamentally what it is — between a man and a woman. As Romney put it in a letter to U.S. senators this summer as they were taking up a federal marriage amendment: “Americans are tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement, and we all wish to avoid hurtful disregard of the feelings of others. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage.”
If conservatives can articulate that — something kinder and gentler than the caricature of gay-marriage opponents — we may just get somewhere. It’s a pretty decent proposal for Republicans.
And did this really happen?
At the pre-Thanksgiving week rally in Boston, gay-marriage proponents booed as the Pledge of Allegiance was said and “God Bless America” was sung. It was an appropriate scene.
